Yeşilçam’da Körlüğün Temsili: Trajik, Tıbbi ve Zamansız

Öz

Bu çalışmada iki Yeşilçam filminde (Hayatım Sana Feda, Adını Anmayacağım) körlüğün nasıl temsil edildiği incelenmiş ve engel modelleri kapsamında değerlendirilmiştir. Filmlerde üç kör kahraman vardır, Zeynep, Kemal ve Engin. Elde edilen verilerin değerlendirilmesinde yorumlayıcı fenomonolojik analiz kullanılmıştır. Beş son/kesin tema ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Üst temalar: Hayatım bir trajedi, Tıbbi model ve Zamansal paradokstur. Hayatım bir trajedi temasının iki alt teması mevcuttur, bunlar, eşitsizlik, pasiflik ve refakate muhtaçlık ile körlüğü abartmak olarak tanımlanmıştır. Türkiye’de 1970’lerde ve hatta günümüzde engel kavramı ile ilgili olarak tıbbi model ile birlikte trajedi modelinin merkeze oturduğu anlaşılmıştır. Engelle ilgili olarak toplum tarafından kırılması zor bir kısır döngü yaratılmıştır. Filmlerde kahramanlar bir anda ve tamamen kör olmakta ve yine aynı hız ve kesinlikte iyileşmektedirler. Bu da sunulan körlük tanımlamasının da gerçeklikten uzak olduğunu göstermektedir. Farklı araştırma soruları ve desenlerle senaristlerin ve yönetmenlerin de katılabileceği takip eden çalışmalar yapılabilir. Filmlerin toplumsal cinsiyet perspektifinden de incelenmesi mümkündür

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Türk Sineması
• Türkiye’de engel
• sosyal temsiller
• yorumlayıcı fenomonolojik analiz
• engel modelleri

The Representations of Disability within Turkish Cinema (Yeşilçam): Tragic, Medical, and Ill Timed

Öz

The study aimed to investigate two films within Turkish Cinema (called Yeşilçam) in relation to disability representations. The results were interpreted in accordance with the models of disability. Medical model conceptualizes disability within clinical terms and defines it as an illness. Within this model impairment and disability are equated. On the other hand, according to the social model, society is the major oppressor and the main creator of disability. The medical model is closely linked with the tragedy model, which argues that disabled people are living in a continuous tragedy. The discourses and the behaviors of the three blind characters namely Zeynep, Kemal, and Engin were investigated within this paper. Interpretive phenomenological analysis was used as the analysis tool. Five final themes emerged where the superordinate themes were: My life is a tragedy, Medical model, and Time paradox. My life is a tragedy theme was further divided into two sub-themes. The first sub-theme was inequality, being passive and in need of accompaniment. Exaggerating blindness was the other sub-theme. It is argued that the tragedy model together with the medical model were central in Turkey. Although this was the case in 1970s, the current situation does not seem to be different. The current attitude in Turkey regarding the disabilities is also coercive and unfriendly. An enduring vicious cycle in relation to disability was created by the society. The characters in the films were becoming blind all of a sudden and in a total manner. Similarly, the recovery was quick and definite. This kind of a blindness depiction was far from being valid. With different research questions and designs further studies might include the scriptwriters and directors. It might be also possible to investigate the films within the gender perspective

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Turkish Cinema
• disability in Turkey
• social representations
• interpretive phenomenological analysis
• models of disability

Kaynakça

1. Agocuk, P. (2015). Türk Sineması’nda melodram: “Seven Ne Yapmaz” filmi üzerinden Yeşilçam Sineması’nda melodramın kodlarının çözümlenmesi. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(40), 562-576.
2. Akpınar, Ş. (2015). Melodram ve modernite ilişkisi bağlamında, Yeşilçam sinemasında Avrupalılık görünümlerinin kadın karakterler üzerinden temsili: Kezban filmleri örneği. Turkish Studies: International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 10(10), 61- 80.
3. Arslan, M. (Yapımcı/Yönetmen). (1970). Hayatım sana feda [Film]. Türkiye: Sine Film.
4. Bezmez, D. (2013). Urban citizenship, the right to the city and politics of disability in Istanbul. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37(1), 93-114.
5. Brunsden, V. & Hill, R. (2009). Firefighters’ experience of strike: An interpretative phenomenological analysis case study. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 30(1-2), 99-115.
6. Dawn, R. (2014). The politics of cinematic representation of disability: “The psychiatric gaze” Disability & Rehabilitation, 36(6), 515-520.
7. Black, R. S. & Pretes, L. (2007). Victims and victors: Representation of physical disability on the silver screen. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(1), 66-83.
8. Devenney, M. J. V. (2004). The Social Representations of Disability: Fears, Fantasies and Facts. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Clare College, Cambridge, UK. http://disability-studies. leeds.ac.uk/files/library/devenney-PhD-Final-including-bibliography-.pdf

9. Dönmez-Colin, G. (2010). Women in Turkish Cinema: Their presence and absence as images and as image- makers, Third Text, 24(1), 91-105.
10. French, S. (2004). Can you see the rainbow? The roots of denial. In J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes & C. Thomas. (Eds), Disabling barriers-enabling environments (pp. 81-86). London: Sage Publications.
11. Greenberg, E. G. (1986) Protect your key person against “living death”. Lawyers Magazine, 72(6), 48-51.
12. Hamill, R., Carson, S., & Dorahy. M. (2010). Experiences of psychosocial adjustment within 18 months of amputation: An interpretative phenomenological analysis, Disability & Rehabilitation, 32(9), 729- 740.
13. Huws, J. C. & Jones, R. S. P. (2008). Diagnosis, disclosure, and having autism: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the perceptions of young people with autism. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 33(2), 99-107.
14. İnanoğlu, T. (Yapımcı) & Elmas, O. (Yönetmen). (1971). Adını anmayacağım [Film]. Türkiye: Erler Film.
15. Kaya, F., Ogurlu, Ü., Taşdemir, B., & Toprak, Y. (2015). Türkiye’de üstün zekaya ilişkin sosyal temsiller. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 11(2), 742-765.
16. Kaya-Mutlu, D. (2010). Between tradition and modernity: Yeşilçam melodrama, its stars, and their audiences. Middle Eastern Studies, 46(3), 417-431.
17. Koca-Atabey, M. (2007). Flow experience and intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation among graduate students: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. PRIME Journal, 2, 111-121.
18. Koca-Atabey, M. (2013). A personal validation of the social nature of disability: Different environments, different experiences. Disability & Society, 28(7), 1027-1031.
19. Koca-Atabey, M., Karancı, A. N., Dirik, G. & Aydemir, D. (2011). Psychological well-being of Turkish university students with physical impairments: An evaluation within the stress-vulnerability paradigm. International Journal of Psychology, 46(2), 106-118.
20. Larkin, M. & Griffiths, M. D. (2002). Experiences of addiction and recovery: The case for subjective accounts. Addiction Research & Theory, 10(3), 281-311.
21. Latham, K. F. (2015). What is ‘the real thing’ in the museum? An interpretative phenomenological study. Museum Management & Curatorship, 30(1), 2-20.
22. Lee, J. & Skewes-McFerran, K. (2015). Applying interpretative phenomenological analysis to video data in music therapy. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(4), 367-381.
23. Mayers, C., Leavey, G., Vallianatou, C., & Baker, C. (2007). How clients with religious or spiritual beliefs experience psychological help-seeking and therapy: A qualitative study. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 14(4), 317-327.
24. Moscovici, S. (1981). On social representations. In J. Forgas (ed), Social cognition: Perspectives on everyday understanding (pp. 181-209). London: Academic Press.
25. Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 211-250.
26. Morris, J. (1991). Pride against prejudice. Transforming attitudes to disability. London: Women Press.
27. Morris, J. (1993). Independent lives. Community care and disabled people. London: Macmillan Press.
28. O’Toole, P. (2013). Capturing undergraduate experience through participant - generated video. The Qualitative Report, 18(33), 1-14.
29. Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability. From theory to practice. New York: Palgrave.
30. Ong-Dean, C. (2005). Reconsidering the social location of the medical model: An examination of disability in the parenting literature. Journal of Medical Humanities, 26(2-3), 141-158. Priestly, M. (2003). Disability. A Life Course Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
31. Reeve, D. (2006). Towards a psychology of disability: The emotional effects of living in a disabling society. In D. Goodley & R. Lawthom (Eds.), Disability and psychology: Critical introductions and reflections (pp. 94-107). London: Palgrave.
32. Shakespeare, T. (1994). Cultural representation of disabled people: Dustbins for Disavowal? Disability & Society, 9(3), 283-299.
33. Siebers, T. (2004). Disability as masquerade. Literature & Medicine, 23(1), 1-22.
34. Smith, J. A. (2011). Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5(1), 9-27.
35. Smith, J. A., Jarman, M., & Osborn, M. (1999). Doing interpretative phenomenological analysis. In M. Murray & K. Chamberlain. (Eds). Qualitative Health Psychology: Theories and Methods (pp. 218- 240). London: Sage Publications.
36. Smith, J. A. & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith. (Ed), Qualitative psychology. A practical guide to research methods (pp.218-240). Sage Publications: London.
37. Stein, I. (2010). Breaking a disabled limb: Social and medical construction of ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ impairments. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30, 1294-1330. http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1294/1330
38. Todd, D., Simpson, J., & Murray, C. (2010). An interpretative phenomenological analysis of delusions in people with Parkinson's disease. Disability & Rehabilitation, 32(15), 1291-1299.
39. Tufan İ., Yaman H., & Arun, Ö. (2007). Disability in Turkey: Suggestions for overcoming current problems. International Social Work 50(6), 839-846.
40. Yıldırım, A. (t.y.). Türk Sineması’nın 1950 -1975 Yılları Arasındaki Döneminin Sinema Dili Açısından İncelenmesi ve Bu Dile Etki Eden Faktörlerin Saptanması. https://www.academia. edu/20014720/T%C3%BCrk_Sinemas%C4%B1_n%C4%B1n_1950_1975_Y%C4%B1llar%C4%B1_ Aras%C4%B1ndaki_D%C3%B6neminin_Sinema_ Dili_A%C3%A7%C4%B1s%C4%B1ndan_%C4%B0ncelenmesi
41. Yıldırım, K. (2010). Nitel araştırmalarda niteliği arttırma. İlköğretim Online, 9(1), 79-92.
42. Yasak, Y. & Öner, B. (1998, Eylül). Türk insanı gözü ile trafiğin anlamı: Bir ön çalışma. Sözlü Bildiri X. Ulusal Psikoloji Kongresi, Ankara, Türkiye.